danieLion wrote:Can Buddhism be improved upon? Was the Buddha perfect?

Why would one wish to "improve" Buddhism if one doesn't understand what it is yet?What exactly is a Buddha anyway?.....if we don't know what it is, then how can we say it is perfect or imperfect?

Yes, exactly. This is what I was trying to say in my "shallow stab" on page 2....

Aloka wrote:Maybe if we practice more and speculate less, we'll develop the wisdom to be able fully understand the Buddha's teachings first.

Hi Aloka,Please explicate the connection between what you said and what equilbrium said. It's not clear to me how the two are connected. As far as I could tell you were merely speculating about why we shouldn't speculate about such things. Which part of what you said corresponds to what equilibrium said?Kindly

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Savatthi in Jetas Grove, Anathapindika's Park. Then King Pasenadi of Kosala approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to the Blessed One: "Does master Gotama too claim, 'I have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment'?

"If, great king, one speaking rightly could say of anyone, 'He has awakened to this unsurpassed perfect englightenment,' it is of me that one might rightly say this. For I, great king, have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment."...

- SN. I Kosala Samyutta, 1,1 - 'Young'

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Nalanda in Pavarika's Mango Grove. Then the Venerable Sariputta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: 'Venerable Sir, I have such confidence in the Blessed One that I believe there has not been, nor ever will be nor exists at present another ascetic or brahmin more knowledgeable than the Blessed One with respect to enlightenment."

- SN. IV Satipatthanasamyutta, 2, 12 'Nalanda'

"But is it possible, lord, to point out yet another fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?"

"Yes, it is, great king. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.

"There is the case, great king, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He teaches the Dhamma admirable in its beginning, admirable in its middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims the holy life both in its particulars and in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.

"A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?'

"So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness.

"When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content.

2. "Monks, this Teaching[47] so well proclaimed by me, is plain, open, explicit, free of patchwork.[48] In this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork; for those who are arahants, free of taints, who have accomplished and completed their task, have laid down the burden, achieved their aim, severed the fetters binding to existence, who are liberated by full knowledge, there is no (future) round of existence that can be ascribed to them.

43. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those monks who have abandoned the five lower fetters will all be reborn spontaneously (in the Pure Abodes) and there they will pass away finally, no more returning from that world.

44. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those monks who have abandoned three fetters and have reduced greed, hatred and delusion, are all once-returners, and, returning only once to this world, will then make an end of suffering.

45. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those monks who have abandoned three fetters, are all stream-enterers, no more liable to downfall, assured, and headed for full Enlightenment.

46. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit, and free of patchwork, those monks who are mature in Dhamma, mature in faith,[49] are all headed for full Enlightenment.

47. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me,[50] are all destined for heaven."

48. This said the Blessed One. Satisfied, the monks rejoiced in the words of the Blessed One.

Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [1]

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

The very nature of this Dhamma is perfection. It has perfection as it's source and perfection is it's goal. This Dhamma is free of patchwork, the doctrine cannot be improved upon, to suggest otherwise is arrogance that will lead to harm and suffering. Unfortunately for some, it is not seen that a starting point of real progress in this Dhamma is the admission of one's own blindness to the true nature of existence. One cannot make progress if one thinks one already knows best... This is the point I was trying to make last night when I got called out for being bombastic by a certain member.

Another portion of an above quoted sutta comes to mind and should be oft remembered by those who engage in debates here, so as not to fall into wrong doing (as I once did a lot in my discussions here):

10.[8] "There are here, O monks, some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight. They study the Teaching only to use it for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. They do not experience the (true) purpose for which they (ought to) study the Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

"Suppose, monks, a man wants a snake, looks for a snake, goes in search of a snake. He then sees a large snake, and when he is grasping its body or its tail, the snake turns back on him and bites his hand or arm or some other limb of his. And because of that he suffers death or deadly pain. And why? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake.

"Similarly, O monks, there are here some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight. They study the Teaching only to use it for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. They do not experience the (true) purpose for which they (ought to) study the Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

11. "But there are here, O monks, some noble sons who study the Teaching;[13] and having studied it, they examine wisely the purpose of those teachings. To those who wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will yield insight. They do not study the Teaching for the sake of criticizing nor for refuting others in disputation. They experience the purpose for which they study the Teaching; and to them these teachings being rightly grasped, will bring welfare and happiness for a long time. And why? Because of their right grasp of the teachings.

"Suppose, monks, a man wants a snake, looks for a snake, goes in search of a snake. He then sees a large snake, and with a forked stick he holds it firmly down. Having done so he catches it firmly by the neck. Then although the snake might entwine with (the coils of) its body that man's hand or arm or some other limb of his, still he does not on that account suffer death or deadly pain. And why not? Because of his right grasp of the snake.

"Similarly, O monks, there are here some noble sons who study the Teaching; and having learned it, they examine wisely the purpose of those teachings. To those who wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will yield insight. They do not study the Teaching for the sake of criticizing nor for refuting others in disputation. They experience the purpose for which they study the Teaching; and to them these teachings being rightly grasped, will bring welfare and happiness for a long time. And why? Because of their right grasp of the teachings.

12. "Therefore, O monks, if you know the purpose of what I have said, you should keep it in mind accordingly. But if you do not know the purpose of what I have said, you should question me about it, or else (ask) those monks who are wise.

Ultimately, if one reads these quotes and still doesn't agree, then either one has not got faith in the Buddha, one does not believe him to be telling the truth, or one thinks he is overestimating himself, or one thinks the Suttas are made up by some person or other. But the Buddha has said one can directly realize the Dhamma for oneself and go beyond any doubt in all of the above passages. One does not even need to become an heir in Dhamma, one can by solid reasoning and deduction alone through one's experience, arrive at the conclusion that the Blessed One is truly enlightened, that such a Dhamma as this could only be discovered by a Buddha - A fully enlightened being, and that the Dhamma is well expounded and free of patchwork.

Very likely either this post will be ignored, or people will take offence to it thinking: Who is he to tell us what to do... How arrogant and bombastic he is! But it one person sees the wisdom in the Buddha's teachings and comes to think that Danielion is misguided in his assumption that the Dhamma is not complete and that the Buddha was not perfect, then this will have achieved it's goal.

The amount of skepticism towards the Buddha's teachings on these forums is what led me to leave this place as well as realizing that it was leading to an unjustifiable amount of passion in me that was hindering my own practice. When one is disparaged for thinking that the Suttas should be taken at their word and that the Buddha was a real human being who was fully enlightened it becomes evident that the environment is one that is hostile to those who have strong faith in the Buddha and those who believe (or know) the Buddha & Dhamma to be perfect. Not to say that I am so arrogant as to think one person leaving here makes an iota of a difference, I do not think highly of my posts or anything... But the point is this: The skeptical humanists and naysayers have won, this environment is not friendly towards those who wish to express a view that the Buddha was a real person who was really enlightened - At least that was my experience.

with mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Jack, I have no gripes with your views and I think that most people here accept that the Buddha was fully enlightened.

My last comment was simply because I was puzzled by your style. Besides that I was concerned that you are OK, that's all.

My reading of this discussion is that it is more around tangential points and interpretations rather than doubting what the Buddha taught. We have all taken refuge here, I think, and I assume that we all mean it. But what that implies is of course different to each one of us.

Thank you for your concern Dan, you can rest easy, for I am not a kook who has gone mad and thought himself an arahant...

But if I were a non returner, or an arahant bound to die within 7 days or even a sotapanna for that matter (which I am not - As far as I know) and was foolish enough to declare it to you, you would undoubtedly think I was mad, or at the very least confused and over estimating, and that was a point I moaned about earlier. But thinking further on the topic, it is to be expected that such is the case. We live in a boy who cried wolf situation in this case, at least for those of us who have been around the Sangha-block so to speak.

Finally, I think you might be jumping the gun in assuming that everyone here has taken refuge, even with the proviso that refuge might mean different things to different people (despite the Buddha being quite categorical about what it should mean) - At least in my eyes it is clear that there is more than one person here who does not think the Buddha was real, or indeed fully enlightened/perfect (the two are quite synonymous).

Now at the risk of becoming a hypocrite (for I have said multiple times that I'm going, and returned to address a certain point or post) I must act in accordance with my statements and depart

mettaJack

Last edited by BlackBird on Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Hi Chris,Very REBT/CBT. But: (1) Which Pali word's getting translated as "anger" here? (2) There are several insatances in the suttas and vinaya where the Buddha clearly demonstrated anger towards others. (3) The other two translations (Buddharakkhita, Thanissaro) do not convey the "anger arising within" idea so much as what is done with anger after it arises within.Kindly,dL

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

The word "perfect" is very broad and will need to be defined in context. The Buddha's physical body wasn't perfect for it was still subjected to pains and injuries. Nor his health for he still got old and sick. He couldn't get rid of the terrible consequences sentient beings had to face due to their past negative kamma, etc. However, He's "perfect" in terms of morality, meditation, and wisdom. Same thing for His teaching. It's perfect in the sense that the 3 characteristics, 4NT, 8NP, 12 DO, etc.. are true and will remain so in this endless samsara..

danieLion wrote:He was fully/perfectly enlightened/awakened by his definition and standards, which in part were derived from his culture.

But he was not perfect in all ways.

Culture? I'm beginning to question your concept of awakening. Now I'm not saying you are not aware of the finer details, but if you were I don't think you would feel this way. You don't seem that impressed. If you cannot relate to the Buddha - if what he did was not impressive - if what he accomplished cannot be applied to your situation (as it seems through the above comment) - then you have likely gotten a superficial, impractical and/or inaccurate description of what he did. Or perhaps you just don't believe any of it was possible? I'm curious about what you think happened that night (AS IF ANY OF US COULD KNOW?!) But like we discussed earlier it is our ideas coupled with our imagination that drive us.

Although it is slightly on topic, since you are the OP, it is up to you if you want to discuss this any further.

EDIT - Grammar

Last edited by SDC on Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hitvā icchañ ca lobhañ ca, yattha satto puthujjano,cakkhumā patipajjeyya tareyya narakam imam.Forsaking desire and lust where the commoner is stuckLet the man with eyes proceed and get across this hell. (Sn. 706: 137)

danieLion wrote:Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "understanding," but there are plenty people who understand what Buddhism is, many of which frequent this forum.

Hi danieLion,Understanding comes in different depths just like the great oceans, there is a saying "One cannot see beyond what one cannot understand" so clearly one must know what ones limitation is and seek to know the unknown.

When we say "plenty people who understand".....do you not think one ought to be very careful here?.....Are we not assuming that they understand and blindly following them?.....and how do we know that they understand? We really don't, agree?The Buddha noted something very interesting about his teaching too that we need to investigate it by ourselves and to verify it to be true before we accept it. So if we don't know others what they understand then how can we assume that they understand?.....Is this not a blind man leading a blind man?On the same subject of "plenty people who understand", did the Buddha not advised us differently.....very few maybe!!?? and how do you see this reflection?

What is more important is whether you understand and not what you think if others understands, is it not?.....Have you heard of the saying "One must save oneself first before saving others".Am interested to hear further on your own understanding on what Buddhism is as you have expressed "yes" under improvement and why?

"As the Buddha says at one point in describing his Awakening, 'Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose - as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, and resolute.' In other words, he gained liberating knowledge through qualities that we can all develop: heedfulness, ardency, resolution. If we are willing to face the implications of this fact, we realize that the Buddha's Awakening is a challenge to our entire set of values. The fact that the Unconditioned can be attained forces us to re-evaluate any other goals we may set for ourselves, whatever worlds we want to create, in our lives...

Even for those who are not ready to make that kind of investment, the Awakening assures us that happiness comes from developing qualities within ourselves that we can be proud of, such as kindness, sensitivity, equanimity, mindfulness, conviction, determination, and discernment. Again, this is a very different message from the one we pick up from the world telling us that in order to gain happiness we have to develop qualities we can't take any genuine pride in: aggressiveness, self-aggrandizement, dishonesty, etc."

"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "--------------------------------------------"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation, Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "

What is the world?It is the six sense media.What is the Buddha in the world?It is a sight, smell, sound, taste, touch, and idea.Is the Buddha perfect?Only as perfect as sight, smell, sound, taste, touch, and idea can be.chownah

The very nature of this Dhamma is perfection. It has perfection as it's source and perfection is it's goal. This Dhamma is free of patchwork, the doctrine cannot be improved upon, to suggest otherwise is arrogance that will lead to harm and suffering. Unfortunately for some, it is not seen that a starting point of real progress in this Dhamma is the admission of one's own blindness to the true nature of existence. One cannot make progress if one thinks one already knows best... This is the point I was trying to make last night when I got called out for being bombastic by a certain member.

Isn't "perfection" a subjective ideal?

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

BlackBird wrote:Ultimately, if one reads these quotes and still doesn't agree, then either one has not got faith in the Buddha, one does not believe him to be telling the truth, or one thinks he is overestimating himself, or one thinks the Suttas are made up by some person or other.

I think "one is still in the process of developing faith in the Buddha" is a legitimate reason as well. In my experience the development of saddha has been gradual, requiring a great deal of contemplation and reflection.

Hitvā icchañ ca lobhañ ca, yattha satto puthujjano,cakkhumā patipajjeyya tareyya narakam imam.Forsaking desire and lust where the commoner is stuckLet the man with eyes proceed and get across this hell. (Sn. 706: 137)

danieLion wrote:(2) There are several instances in the suttas and vinaya where the Buddha clearly demonstrated anger towards others.

You have some weird views. The very definition of an Arahant or Buddha is someone who has eradicated all traces of anger. From the sutta quoted above:

How could anger rise in him who's free,Wrathless, all his passions tamed, at peace,Freed by highest insight, by himself,So abiding, perfectly serene?

Hi Pesala,I agree that some of my views at times are not typical, but how exactly do you think they're "wierd"? Are all of your views non-wierd? I might be wrong, but the "very definition of an Arahant or Buddha" is not that he eradicates all traces of anger but that he roots out hate. Chris didn't answer my question about which Pali word is being translated as "anger." I looked at the Pali and it's not dosa. Perhaps you could tell me what the Pali is here? Maybe I'm wrong, but when the Buddha called Devadatta a lickspiddle, he was showing anger; and he frequently called others foolish/misguided/worthless; and it sure looks to me like he got angry at Ananda frequently. If being honest about the how the suttas portray the Buddha is "wierd" then I guess I'm wierd.Kindly,dL

Last edited by danieLion on Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

danieLion wrote:He was fully/perfectly enlightened/awakened by his definition and standards, which in part were derived from his culture.

But he was not perfect in all ways.

Culture? I'm beginning to question your concept of awakening. Now I'm not saying you are not aware of the finer details, but if you were I don't think you would feel this way. You don't seem that impressed. If you cannot relate to the Buddha - if what he did was not impressive - if what he accomplished cannot be applied to your situation (as it seems through the above comment) - then you have likely gotten a superficial, impractical and/or inaccurate description of what he did. Or perhaps you just don't believe any of it was possible? I'm curious about what you think happened that night (AS IF ANY OF US COULD KNOW?!) But like we discussed earlier it is our ideas coupled with our imagination that drive us.

Although it is slightly on topic, since you are the OP, it is up to you if you want to discuss this any further.

EDIT - Grammar

What? You think the Buddha lived in a cultural vacuum? He impresses me a lot, but as a human being, not a perfect being. Faith/confidence does not require a super-human Buddha.Kindly,dL

danieLion wrote:I agree that some of my views at times are not typical, but how exactly do you think they're "wierd"?

Your spelling is weird too

Not all criticism is rooted in anger or aversion. Sometimes, the Buddha spoke words that were true, displeasing to others, but beneficial. Not all speech that is displeasing to others is the unwholesome kamma of harsh speech. If it's true, and aimed at benefit, then it's rooted in compassion.

Sometimes, the Buddha spoke words that were displeasing and harmful to some, but beneficial to others, e.g. when offered Māgaṇḍiyā as his bride he said that he would not touch her body, which he said was a bag full of urine and excrement. She hated him, but her parents become Non-returners.

The Buddha and the Arahants are free from all traces of mental defilements. There are various translations used for the various Pāḷi terms used, one would have to look carefully at the context to see which is a more appropriate translation.